Interest on Delayed GST Refunds for Exporters

By | February 9, 2026

Interest on Delayed GST Refunds for Exporters


1. The Core Dispute: Prolonged Pendency of Refund Claims

The petitioner, an exporter, sought a refund of GST paid on zero-rated supplies. Despite the completion of exports and the filing of valid refund applications, the claims remained undecided for over one year.

  • Petitioner’s Argument: Section 54(7) of the CGST Act mandates that a proper officer must issue a refund order within 60 days from the date of receipt of a complete application. The delay was causing a severe working capital crunch, and as per Section 56, they were entitled to interest for the delay.

  • Revenue’s Stand: The department eventually provided an undertaking in court to expedite the decision, acknowledging the delay.


2. Legal Analysis: The Mandatory “60-Day” Rule

The Court emphasized that the timelines for processing GST refunds are not merely “directory” but mandatory.

I. Prompt Decision-Making (Section 54)

The proper officer is legally bound to either sanction the refund or issue a show-cause notice (SCN) for rejection within the statutory window.

  • The Ruling: Failure to act within 60 days constitutes a breach of statutory duty. The blocking of refunds has a “cascading adverse effect” on the business operations of taxpayers.

II. Automatic Accrual of Interest (Section 56)

Under Section 56, if a refund is not sanctioned within 60 days of the application, interest at the rate of 6% per annum becomes payable.

  • Compensatory Character: The Court clarified that interest under Section 56 is automatic and statutory. It is a compensatory mechanism and does not depend on whether the taxpayer specifically claimed interest in their original application.

  • Calculation: The interest clock starts ticking from the 61st day after the application date and continues until the date the refund is actually credited to the bank account.


3. The Ruling: Mandamus and Mandate

The High Court accepted the Revenue’s undertaking to process the claim within a four-week window but added strict observations regarding interest.

  • Communication Deadline: The authority was directed to communicate the final order on the refund claim within four weeks.

  • Mandatory Interest: The Court ordered that if the refund is sanctioned, the department must calculate and pay the statutory interest at 6% per annum for the period of delay.

  • Enhanced Interest: Notably, if the refund arises from an order of an appellate authority or court that has attained finality, the interest rate under the proviso to Section 56 is enhanced to 9% per annum.


Key Takeaways for Exporters

  1. Monitor the 60-Day Window: Once this period expires, you have a legal right to interest.

  2. No Separate Interest Claim Required: You do not need to file a new form to ask for interest; the officer is required to include it in the Payment Advice (RFD-05).

  3. Writ Remedy for Stalemate: If your refund is stuck for an unreasonable time (like one year in this case), you can approach the High Court under Article 226 for a “Mandamus” (a court order to a public official to perform their duty).

  4. Check Deficiency Memos: Ensure you respond to any Deficiency Memo (RFD-03) within 15 days, as delays on your part might lead to a “restart” of the 60-day clock or exclusion of that period from interest calculation.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
IT Preneurs Technology (P.) Ltd.
v.
Joint Commissioner*
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE and Ajay Digpaul, JJ.
W.P.(C) No. 385 OF 2026
JANUARY  13, 2026
Pawan AroraMs. Hemlata Rawat and Ms. Tanya Madhu, Advs. for the Petitioner. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
CM APPL. 1851/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 385/2026
3. After the return was submitted by the petitioner and upon completion of the export activity, the petitioner sought a refund, which issue is pending consideration with the respondents for more than one year.
4. As such, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to decide the prayer of the petitioner qua the refund claimed by him. It is also urged that Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) contemplates that the decision be taken within a period of sixty days.
5. It was incumbent on the part of the respondents to decide the same, failing which interest was liable to be levied.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the request of the petitioner is already under process and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.
7. Since the statement is coming from the authority on instructions, same is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.
8. As such, we dispose of the present petition by accepting the aforesaid statement, viz., that the order qua the claim for refund canvassed by the petitioner shall be communicated within a period of four weeks from today.
9. We make it clear that the authority shall be equally sensitive to the provisions of Section 56 of the CGST Act which contemplates the payment of interest @6%, in case, if the request for refund is not processed within a period of one year.
10. The petition as such stands partly allowed in above terms.
11. Let the compliance be reported before this Court within a period of six weeks from today.
12. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com